Cancellation
Taco Co of Australia v Taco Bell
A misrepresentation under the CRA is misleading within the meaning of s 9 FTA
Ingram v Patcroft Properties
A party could be seen as benefiting from its own wrong where it is unable or unwilling to perform the contract and seeks to avoid liability for its own breach by cancelling the contract on the basis of the other party's breach
Noble Investments v Keenan
A party could be seen as benefiting from its own wrong where it is unable or unwilling to perform the contract and seeks to avoid liability for its own breach by cancelling the contract on the basis of the other party's breach
Hughes v Huppert
Affirmation according to s 7(5) CRA does not remove the right to damages for misrepresentation under s 6 CRA
Betham v Margetts
Although s 7(4) CRA does not apply to s 7(2) CRA, anticipatory repudiation normally has to relate to non-compliance with a term that is essential to the cancelling party or non-compliance which will have serious consequences for the cancelling party
Nicholls v Tamariki
Cancelling party who only seeks damages may not need to show that it was ready, willing and able to perform the contract
Yu v T & P Developments
Defines when a term in a contract is broken before and at completion
NZ Tenancy Bonds v Mooney
Essential term within the meaning of s 7(4)(a) CRA when a contract for the sale and purchase of property provides that the time for payment of the deposit is "strictly of the essence of the contract"
Progeni Systems v Hampton Studies
Essentiality within the meaning of s 7(4)(a) CRA is given when the representation is of such importance to the representee that without it he would not have contracted with the representor or not on those particular terms
Hochster v De la Tour
Explicit anticipatory repudiation within s 7(2) CRA ("by words") when one party informs the other that the contract will not be performed
Hansen v Boocock
If a contract incorporating an essential term is signed, it will be easier to establish its essentiality than if statements are made during negotiations Incurrence of additional costs may make effect of misrepresentation or breach substantial within the meaning of s 7(4)(b)(i) CRA
Sharplin v Henderson
If a contracting-out clause does not cover a particular breach, the CRA will apply
Garratt v Ikeda
If accrued unconditionally before cancellation, a purchaser will have to pay the deposit even after cancellation took effect
Brown v Langwoods Photo Stores
If accrued unconditionally before cancellation, purchaser has to pay the deposit even after cancellation took effect Courts have wide discretion to grant relief under s 9 CRA
Donnelly v Westpac Banking
If one party cancels on unjustifiable grounds, the cancellation will be effective provided proper grounds existed
Gallagher v Young
Incurrence of additional costs may make effect of misrepresentation or breach substantial within the meaning of s 7(4)(b)(i) CRA
Broadlands Finance v Inwood
Instead of cancellation under the CRA, a right of rejection applies to the sale of goods, ss 32, 36 f SGA
Starlight Enterprises v Lapco Enterprises
No repudiation => no right to cancel under s 7(2) CRA Whether a party intends to perform or not is assessed from the point of view of a reasonable person
Forde v Electrodry NZ
Not required that relief under s 9 CRA be pleaded ("the court ... may ... if it is just and practicable to do so, make an order")
Nectar v SPHC Operations
Parties are presumed to know the terms of their own contract
Newmans Tours v Ranier Investments
Power of the court to relief under s 9 subject to only one prerequisite: it must be "just and practicable to do so", s 9(1) CRA S 9 CRA jurisdiction extends to the restitution, reliance and expectation interest
Brooklands Motor v Bridge Wholesale Acceptance
Reasonable bystander test applies to s 7(3)(c) CRA
Lovelock v Franklyn
Sale to a third person is an example of an implicit anticipatory repudiation within s 7(2) CRA ("by conduct")
Broadcasting Corp of NZ v Nielsen
Secondary obligations (arbitration clauses, restraints of trade) survive cancellation by virtue of s 5 CRA
Moodie v Agriultural Ventures
Ss 7-9 CRA do not apply to the sale of goods, see 15(d) CRA
Jolly v Palmer
Substantial within the meaning of s 7(4)(b) CRA = more than trivial Cancellation after having affirmed the contract (e.g. by resale) amounts to a repudiation of the contract
Finch Motors v Quin (No 2)
The CRA does not apply to contracts for the sale of goods, ss 60(2) SGA, 15(d) CRA
Tinnock v Birkenhead Heights
The breach of a dispute resolution clause in a building contract is "substantial" within the meaning of s 7(4)(b) CRA
Jack v Guy
The obligation to obtain resource consent is an essential term for the purposes of anticipatory repudiation within s 7(2) CRA
Young v Hunt
The plaintiff has to prove that "the performance of the term is essential to him", s 7(4)(a) CRA
Mana Property Trustee v James Developments
The time by which a contract must be performed matters for s 7(2) CRA A breach of an essential term with only a minor effect entitles to cancel under s 7(4)(a) CRA and so, under s 7(4)(b), does a breach of any term, even a minor term, if it has a serious effect
Thompson v Vincent
There is no requirement to specify, at the time of cancellation, the reasons for doing so S 9 CRA empowers the court to grant relief to both parties (not only to the cancelling party)
White and Carter v McGregor
To cancel is only one option: the entitled party can complete performance and demand the consideration
Cullinane v McGuigan
To determine "substantially", the courts take subjective and objective factors (money) into account
Pearson v Wynn
To determine "substantially", the courts take subjective and objective factors (money) into account
Burch v Willoughby Consultants
Under 9(2)(b) CRA, damages for loss of income, mental suffering and distress can be awarded
Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell
Where one party prevents the other from communicating cancellation by wrongfully absconding, neither he nor those who acquire a title through him can insist on actual notification, s 8(1)(b) CRA
Denarau Investments v Ludlow
Whether a party intends to perform or not within s 7(2) CRA is assessed from the point of view of a reasonable person
Oxborough v North Harbour Builders
Whether a party intends to perform or not within s 7(2) CRA is assessed from the point of view of a reasonable person Defines when a term in a contract is broken before and at completion The continuation of the repudiation gives the innocent party a continuing right to cancel A further breach after affirmation revives the right to cancel